Yes, I am sure it does, but that is no help if I carry a CD audio book from the house to the car to continue listening. It will lose its place. A cassette solves that problem.
The point he was trying to make is, what if I am listening to an audio book in the car, and then I want to continue in the house. A cassette tape does not lose its place. A CD does.
United's Wi-Fi system will piggyback on its existing onboard phone network, which is operated in a partnership with Verizon. Data will be transmitted to and received from the planes through towers on the ground.
I have used all of the services and have written it up. Of course you need to find out which of the services actually works where you plan to use it.
Within the US, if you happen to be in one of Verizon's 32 or so "broadband access" service areas, then Verizon's $80 per month service is the way to go. 300-500k typical download speeds, bursting to 2M bits per second. Upload speeds 100-200k. This service is technically called "EVDO" and Verizon calls it "broadbandaccess". If you are elsewhere in the US the Verizon card will get you what is technically called "1X" speeds, namely 50-70k bps download speed, bursting to 144k. Verizon calls that "nationalaccess". Verizon has a good coverage map tool that will help you figure out whether you would get the fast or slow Verizon service depending on where you are. I previously used the Nextel and Sprint and AT&T Wireless and Cingular and T-Mobile services, and if you are in a broadbandaccess (EVDO) service area, the Verizon service is definitely the way to go.
Proceeding in descending order of speeds, the next speed level within the US is "Edge". The chief Edge provider in the US was formerly AT&T Wireless, now merged into Cingular. If you are in an Edge service area (see the Cingular maps) then you can sometimes get download speeds of 100-130k bps. In other areas Cingular will be able to provide GPRS speeds of maybe one-third of Edge speeds, or around 30-50k downloads.
The next step down is Sprint's 1X service, which is the same speed as Verizon's 1X service. You get 50-70k bits per second.The T-mobile service is the next step down. It is only GPRS (30-50k) and it only works where T-Mobile GSM service can be found. Check the coverage maps and you will see that the T-Mobile GSM coverage is far less in geographic extent than Verizon or Sprint or Cingular.
Finally Nextel. They do have an unlimited data service but it is miserable slow and Nextel's coverage map is even worse than T-Mobile's.
In the networks where two speeds are available (as a function of where you are) the card will automatically shift back and forth. The Verizon card will shift between 1X and EVDO; the Cingular (former AT&T W) card will shift between GPRS and Edge. One nice thing about the Verizon connection manager is it will actually tell you which of the two protocols has been negotiated. In contrast, the AT&TW/Cingular connection manager keeps you in the dark about whether it has negotiated EDGE or GPRS speeds.
The only monthly plans I recommend are the "all you can eat" plans. For $80 per month you can get "all you can eat" from Verizon, Cingular, or Sprint, at the top speed that each network offers. (Verizon has dropped the price of its 1X service to a mere $60 per month for all you can eat as long as it is only at 1X speeds.) For me the $80 per month is well worth it because the service works while I am in taxicabs and on trains and in hotels that would otherwise gouge me for Internet access, and it works in other random locations. None of this hunting around trying to find a WiFi hot spot when I step off the airplane. There are plans with a smaller cost per month, but you don't want them because they will charge per-kilobyte. A moderate hour of web surfing could cost $100 or more in per-kilo charges. You can see right away why it is unwise to choose anything but an all-you-can-eat monthly plan.
Now as to choice of equipment. You will see all sorts of posts where people gleefully describe how they use a USB cable or bluetooth between their computer and their cell phone or Treo and then use the cell phone or Treo to connect to the Internet, and manage to get by without having to pay the full $80 per month. Life is too short for this. First, when the carrier figures out you are using a computer (like you are visiting web sites using an HTTP protocol other than WA
Shouldn't this be sent via something hard-copy, such as registered mail? E-mail is great, and we geeks love it, but for documentable, dated, provably-received things, it's a good idea to send in such a manner that you get a receipt. Then you can wave it in someone's face when they claim they never saw your mail.:)
You are right that sending it in a way that can be confirmed later is important. For experienced trademark lawyers the usual ways of doing this are:
send by ordinary first-class mail, enclosing a return post card that the Trademark Office will date-stamp and mail back to you;
send by fax and save the fax receipt; and
use the Trademark Office's e-filing system to e-file the communication.
Experienced trademark practitioners never use email to file papers in pending application files.
One good thing about the US Trademark Office is that it provides a way to view, online, images of all papers filed in connection with a particular trademark application. So if somebody sends a communication by any of these means to the Trademark Office, it is an easy matter to check later to see if it got into the file. Just go to this page and enter the serial number and the images of all filed papers may be viewed.
It would seem important that the PTO person assigned needs to be made aware of the situation. Is there any way to make sure that happens? I doubt new trademarks are open to public comment.
There's a period while the trademark application is in process where it is published in the Trademark register for opposition... At that point, flood the letters in, and it will get kicked out.
Sorry, but that won't work. Sending mere "letters" during the opposition period will accomplish nothing. See my previous post about the opposition process and resources linked there.
Would this not be signed by his attorney, who might be able to argue that he took his client's word on it...
It turns out to be easy to find out the answer to this question. You go here and then type the serial number (which is "76-627578") and then click on "application" and then click to page five. As you will see, Mr. Foley signed it himself.
This "Trademark Document Retrieval" system is very helpful as it permits the general public to see exactly what was filed in the first place as well as all of the subsequently filed papers.
Another interesting thing is that the trademark lawyer filed the application on paper rather than electronically as most trademark lawyers now do. (You can tell this from the serial number -- if it starts with "78" as most now do, then it was filed electronically; if it starts with "76" as this one does, then it was filed on paper.)
Well, I actually do this sort of thing for a living, and based on what you have written, I doubt that you do.
You cited and linked to Chapter 12 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, which contains a section 1207.03 that appears to contradict your view that this is the correct time in the procedure to raise your issue.
But we will see what happens with the letter you sent. If it works at this stage I will be quite surprised.
One thing I think everyone is missing so far is that it hasn't been approved yet. If you follow the Link to the USPTO site it says it hasn't even been assigned to [an Examining Attorney] yet.
That is correct.
One easy way to keep track of the status of this trademark application is to bookmark this link.
I note that quite a few commenters feel that what is claimed in this patent application is unpatentable, presumably either on the view that what is claimed is (a) non-novel (somebody did it before) or (b) obvious (in view of what has been done before).
I would like to point out that under US patent law, the applicant is obligated to disclose to the Patent Office any relevant prior art of which the applicant is aware. This obligation extends to the applicant's patent counsel.
Those commenters who feel
this patent should not be granted thus have a clear course of action open to them -- send the prior art to the patent firm. The patent firm will be obligated to send it to the Patent Office and the patent examiner will be obligated to consider it.
As may be seen from the front page of the published application, the patent firm handling this application is
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 2040 MAIN STREET - FOURTEENTH FLOOR IRVINE, CA 92614
Readers may also be interested to know that it is possible to view the entirety of the correspondence that has passed back and forth between the applicant and the Patent Office, and to monitor the status of the application. Just point your web browser here and then plug in the application number which is 10612395 . Indeed if you send prior art to the patent firm, then when the patent firm sends the prior art to the Patent Office (in what is called an "Information Disclosure Statement") you will be able to see this event on the status page.
I saw your link and thought you would be citing two or more patent applications. But no, the link only lists one. Are there actually "applications" in the plural to which you refer?
And if you had checked further, you would have seen that this is not a patent application that our firm is handling. To see this, go to the web site of the US Patent and Trademark Office, click on "status & IFW", copy and paste in the publication number listed on the page to which you linked (20040199458), and click "image file wrapper". You will see a paper dated October 2003 showing that since then, some other firm has been handling that patent application. I urge you not to hold my firm responsible for work that is being done by some other firm.
But the really serious thing here is your apparent willingness to read the wrong part of the patent application in reaching your view (in this case, the view of not being impressed). The page to which you linked provided only the abstract. Only by reviewing the claims may one learn what a patent covers (or what a patent application intends to try to cover). My guess is that at the time you reached your view about this patent, you had not even seen the claims, much less read them.
And finally, the example you cite (even though our firm is not handling that application) does serve a useful purpose in this debate. It is a published US patent application, a sort of thing that did not even exist until recent years. (It used to be that all US patent applications were kept secret within the US Patent Office until issuance.) You have found this published patent application, which is exactly what the Patent Office hoped you would do. And if you feel this patent should not be granted (e.g. maybe you feel it is obvious or maybe you have evidence someone did it before) you can tell this to the patent examiner. It is a matter of public record who the examiner is (see link above) and as you will see it is a Clement B Graham. You can write a letter to the USPTO expressing your views and I am confident Mr. Graham will consider those views. Even if I were wrong and if Mr. Graham were to ignore your views, your views would remain in the application file for the life of the patent and any accused infringer could see your views and benefit from them.
So if you are "not impressed", why not communicate your views where they would really matter -- to the examiner.
You,obviously, have never worked in the software field and never worked for small s/w companies to whom spending US$5k-10k per patent would be difficult to justify.
Actually, I have.
And did they have the cash to patent equivalent rubbish that we see patented at the moment? (If so, they would be larger than some of the five and eight man bands that I've worked for and with). Did it gain them anything by so doing?
During recent years I have counseled several small companies (presumably on the scale of your five- and eight-man bands) that were not doing software... that did find the money to pay for basic patent inquiries -- filing their own patent applications on the one hand, and making inquiry regarding particular patents owned by others. In each case I am thinking of regarding such inquiries, they successfully (a) figured out that they did not infringe, or (b) figured out how to design around the patent. Each design-around was of course a good candidate for getting their own patent.
I have also counseled several small companies (presumably on the scale of your five- and eight-man bands) that were doing software... that did find the money to pay for basic patent inquiries -- filing their own patent applications on the one hand, and making inquiry regarding particular patents owned by others. In each case I am thinking of regarding such inquiries, they likewise successfully (a) figured out that they did not infringe, or (b) figured out how to design around the patent. And, as with non-software, each design-around was of course a good candidate for getting their own patent.
Is there some special or magic reason why a software company should be exempt from having to think about patents, when similarly sized companies making mousetraps or socket wrenches do have to think about patents?
Carl, you appear to have a common misconception about the effect of software patents.
The situation you are describing is applicable only for small players who come up with a very nifty algorithm or solution to something, but don't intend to ever produce a product. If they try to actually do anything, they'll trip over other patents and be forced to cross-licence by the major players.
I believe it is you who has a common misperception about the effect of software patents. Your bald and unsupported statement is that a small player who has invented something will trip over other patents. (Note the "'ll" in your posting.) I doubt you can point to even two real-life examples of this happening.
I speak with actual experience with real inventors, lots of them. And out of many dozens of real-life situations of which I am aware where small players have invented things, they moved forward benefiting from their patent and did not "trip over other patents."
You,obviously, have never worked in the software field and never worked for small s/w companies to whom spending US$5k-10k per patent would be difficult to justify.
Actually, I have.
You,obviously, have not read the vast amount of literature on the Web which simply shows that s/w patents are very anti-innovation.
Actually, I have read that literature and am aware of what it claims.
You, obviously, are completely unaware of the fact that small and medium-sized companies do not have the time, money or resources to check that every two or three lines of code may not be infringing on a patent. Go see the MIT Web site for an example of a three line program that infringes.
It is simply false that anybody (whether small or medium-sized or large) needs to "check every two or three lines of code" to see if it "is infringing on a patent."
I know a considerable amount (for a programmer) about patent law, and I've read a fair number of patents.
I do not, however, know how one can clearly distinguish between software and non-software patents.
It is not as easy as one might think.
A further complication arises when software is a part of an invention that also has hardware components. There are many such inventions today.
Unfortunately, "I know a software patent when I see one" probably wouldn't cut it in the courts. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could comment on this problem.
As a patent lawyer, I can confirm this. While there are many people who have negative things to say about "software patents", I have not yet seen a definition of "software patent" that actually works.
Sir, with all due respect, you know nothing whatsoever about the software industry.
Actually, there is no single thing that can be fairly called "the software industry." But I do know quite a lot, actually, about the many industries in which software is important and the many industries in which software is crucial. And I know quite a lot, from real experience, about how the availability of patent protection can make a big difference for small and medium-sized companies, and for companies that do not have very much money.
Too bad you patent lawyers completely screwed up the system by pushing software patents for years and years before you even allowed anyone with appropriate experience into your club.
It's regrettable you would attack the messenger rather than the merits of what I wrote.
But anyway, people with appropriate experience have been able to join "the club" for over twenty years. I, for example, have "appropriate experience" to evaluate software-related patent issues and was admitted to the patent bar in 1987. I know many patent lawyers about which the same may be said.
Many people paint the "software patent" issue as big monied companies versus everybody else. But as a patent lawyer, I can report that quite often the person who would benefit from a software patent is an individual or a small company that does not have a lot of money. In many cases, the only thing that will protect a small inventor against the big companies (who might run off with the idea as soon as it is known) is the availability of the patent system.
So those who would eliminate software patents, thinking they are striking a blow against the Microsofts of the world, might actually be favoring the Microsofts of the world.
Saddino is right that there is no "do it all in one place" route for all countries. But on November 2, 2003, the US became part of a treaty called the Madrid Protocol which permits a single filing to extend to several dozen countries around the world. There is also something called a Community Trademark application which covers most of European Union in a single filing.
Slashdot Mirror
VZ's NationalAccess is 1X service (same speed as Sprint's 1X service) namely around 50-70k bits per second.
In contrast, VZ's BroadbandAccess is EVDO which is 400-700k bit per second. They are not the same thing at all.
Yes, I am sure it does, but that is no help if I carry a CD audio book from the house to the car to continue listening. It will lose its place. A cassette solves that problem.
The point he was trying to make is, what if I am listening to an audio book in the car, and then I want to continue in the house. A cassette tape does not lose its place. A CD does.
I have used all of the services and have written it up. Of course you need to find out which of the services actually works where you plan to use it.
Within the US, if you happen to be in one of Verizon's 32 or so "broadband access" service areas, then Verizon's $80 per month service is the way to go. 300-500k typical download speeds, bursting to 2M bits per second. Upload speeds 100-200k. This service is technically called "EVDO" and Verizon calls it "broadbandaccess". If you are elsewhere in the US the Verizon card will get you what is technically called "1X" speeds, namely 50-70k bps download speed, bursting to 144k. Verizon calls that "nationalaccess". Verizon has a good coverage map tool that will help you figure out whether you would get the fast or slow Verizon service depending on where you are. I previously used the Nextel and Sprint and AT&T Wireless and Cingular and T-Mobile services, and if you are in a broadbandaccess (EVDO) service area, the Verizon service is definitely the way to go.
Proceeding in descending order of speeds, the next speed level within the US is "Edge". The chief Edge provider in the US was formerly AT&T Wireless, now merged into Cingular. If you are in an Edge service area (see the Cingular maps) then you can sometimes get download speeds of 100-130k bps. In other areas Cingular will be able to provide GPRS speeds of maybe one-third of Edge speeds, or around 30-50k downloads.
The next step down is Sprint's 1X service, which is the same speed as Verizon's 1X service. You get 50-70k bits per second.The T-mobile service is the next step down. It is only GPRS (30-50k) and it only works where T-Mobile GSM service can be found. Check the coverage maps and you will see that the T-Mobile GSM coverage is far less in geographic extent than Verizon or Sprint or Cingular.
Finally Nextel. They do have an unlimited data service but it is miserable slow and Nextel's coverage map is even worse than T-Mobile's.
In the networks where two speeds are available (as a function of where you are) the card will automatically shift back and forth. The Verizon card will shift between 1X and EVDO; the Cingular (former AT&T W) card will shift between GPRS and Edge. One nice thing about the Verizon connection manager is it will actually tell you which of the two protocols has been negotiated. In contrast, the AT&TW/Cingular connection manager keeps you in the dark about whether it has negotiated EDGE or GPRS speeds.
The only monthly plans I recommend are the "all you can eat" plans. For $80 per month you can get "all you can eat" from Verizon, Cingular, or Sprint, at the top speed that each network offers. (Verizon has dropped the price of its 1X service to a mere $60 per month for all you can eat as long as it is only at 1X speeds.) For me the $80 per month is well worth it because the service works while I am in taxicabs and on trains and in hotels that would otherwise gouge me for Internet access, and it works in other random locations. None of this hunting around trying to find a WiFi hot spot when I step off the airplane. There are plans with a smaller cost per month, but you don't want them because they will charge per-kilobyte. A moderate hour of web surfing could cost $100 or more in per-kilo charges. You can see right away why it is unwise to choose anything but an all-you-can-eat monthly plan.
Now as to choice of equipment. You will see all sorts of posts where people gleefully describe how they use a USB cable or bluetooth between their computer and their cell phone or Treo and then use the cell phone or Treo to connect to the Internet, and manage to get by without having to pay the full $80 per month. Life is too short for this. First, when the carrier figures out you are using a computer (like you are visiting web sites using an HTTP protocol other than WA
- send by ordinary first-class mail, enclosing a return post card that the Trademark Office will date-stamp and mail back to you;
- send by fax and save the fax receipt; and
- use the Trademark Office's e-filing system to e-file the communication.
Experienced trademark practitioners never use email to file papers in pending application files.One good thing about the US Trademark Office is that it provides a way to view, online, images of all papers filed in connection with a particular trademark application. So if somebody sends a communication by any of these means to the Trademark Office, it is an easy matter to check later to see if it got into the file. Just go to this page and enter the serial number and the images of all filed papers may be viewed.
This "Trademark Document Retrieval" system is very helpful as it permits the general public to see exactly what was filed in the first place as well as all of the subsequently filed papers.
Another interesting thing is that the trademark lawyer filed the application on paper rather than electronically as most trademark lawyers now do. (You can tell this from the serial number -- if it starts with "78" as most now do, then it was filed electronically; if it starts with "76" as this one does, then it was filed on paper.)
Well, I actually do this sort of thing for a living, and based on what you have written, I doubt that you do.
You cited and linked to Chapter 12 of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, which contains a section 1207.03 that appears to contradict your view that this is the correct time in the procedure to raise your issue.
But we will see what happens with the letter you sent. If it works at this stage I will be quite surprised.
Yes and see also this Adaptec product which seems to have been doing TCP/IP offloading for over a year.
The constructive next step is to monitor the status of the application, and when it gets "published for opposition" then file an opposition.
One convenient way to monitor the status of a pending US trademark application is by means of free software called Feathers.
One easy way to keep track of the status of this trademark application is to bookmark this link.
I would like to point out that under US patent law, the applicant is obligated to disclose to the Patent Office any relevant prior art of which the applicant is aware. This obligation extends to the applicant's patent counsel.
Those commenters who feel this patent should not be granted thus have a clear course of action open to them -- send the prior art to the patent firm. The patent firm will be obligated to send it to the Patent Office and the patent examiner will be obligated to consider it.
As may be seen from the front page of the published application, the patent firm handling this application is
Readers may also be interested to know that it is possible to view the entirety of the correspondence that has passed back and forth between the applicant and the Patent Office, and to monitor the status of the application. Just point your web browser here and then plug in the application number which is 10612395 . Indeed if you send prior art to the patent firm, then when the patent firm sends the prior art to the Patent Office (in what is called an "Information Disclosure Statement") you will be able to see this event on the status page.
And if you had checked further, you would have seen that this is not a patent application that our firm is handling. To see this, go to the web site of the US Patent and Trademark Office, click on "status & IFW", copy and paste in the publication number listed on the page to which you linked (20040199458), and click "image file wrapper". You will see a paper dated October 2003 showing that since then, some other firm has been handling that patent application. I urge you not to hold my firm responsible for work that is being done by some other firm.
But the really serious thing here is your apparent willingness to read the wrong part of the patent application in reaching your view (in this case, the view of not being impressed). The page to which you linked provided only the abstract. Only by reviewing the claims may one learn what a patent covers (or what a patent application intends to try to cover). My guess is that at the time you reached your view about this patent, you had not even seen the claims, much less read them.
And finally, the example you cite (even though our firm is not handling that application) does serve a useful purpose in this debate. It is a published US patent application, a sort of thing that did not even exist until recent years. (It used to be that all US patent applications were kept secret within the US Patent Office until issuance.) You have found this published patent application, which is exactly what the Patent Office hoped you would do. And if you feel this patent should not be granted (e.g. maybe you feel it is obvious or maybe you have evidence someone did it before) you can tell this to the patent examiner. It is a matter of public record who the examiner is (see link above) and as you will see it is a Clement B Graham. You can write a letter to the USPTO expressing your views and I am confident Mr. Graham will consider those views. Even if I were wrong and if Mr. Graham were to ignore your views, your views would remain in the application file for the life of the patent and any accused infringer could see your views and benefit from them.
So if you are "not impressed", why not communicate your views where they would really matter -- to the examiner.
I have also counseled several small companies (presumably on the scale of your five- and eight-man bands) that were doing software ... that did find the money to pay for basic patent inquiries -- filing their own patent applications on the one hand, and making inquiry regarding particular patents owned by others. In each case I am thinking of regarding such inquiries, they likewise successfully (a) figured out that they did not infringe, or (b) figured out how to design around the patent. And, as with non-software, each design-around was of course a good candidate for getting their own patent.
Is there some special or magic reason why a software company should be exempt from having to think about patents, when similarly sized companies making mousetraps or socket wrenches do have to think about patents?
I speak with actual experience with real inventors, lots of them. And out of many dozens of real-life situations of which I am aware where small players have invented things, they moved forward benefiting from their patent and did not "trip over other patents."
Sir, with all due respect, you know nothing whatsoever about the software industry.
Actually, there is no single thing that can be fairly called "the software industry." But I do know quite a lot, actually, about the many industries in which software is important and the many industries in which software is crucial. And I know quite a lot, from real experience, about how the availability of patent protection can make a big difference for small and medium-sized companies, and for companies that do not have very much money.
But anyway, people with appropriate experience have been able to join "the club" for over twenty years. I, for example, have "appropriate experience" to evaluate software-related patent issues and was admitted to the patent bar in 1987. I know many patent lawyers about which the same may be said.
Many people paint the "software patent" issue as big monied companies versus everybody else. But as a patent lawyer, I can report that quite often the person who would benefit from a software patent is an individual or a small company that does not have a lot of money. In many cases, the only thing that will protect a small inventor against the big companies (who might run off with the idea as soon as it is known) is the availability of the patent system.
So those who would eliminate software patents, thinking they are striking a blow against the Microsofts of the world, might actually be favoring the Microsofts of the world.
Saddino is right that there is no "do it all in one place" route for all countries. But on November 2, 2003, the US became part of a treaty called the Madrid Protocol which permits a single filing to extend to several dozen countries around the world. There is also something called a Community Trademark application which covers most of European Union in a single filing.
See What does it cost to file a trademark registration application?